Search This Blog

A.P.Revenue summons Act 1/1989 and the Andhra Pradesh Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act, 1974 (for short 'the 1974 Act'). - Thasildar issued to two notice of summons to produce documents etc., else he will take action under Escheats or Bona Vacanita Act to the petitioner - Writ - High court quashed the notices as the Thasildar is not competent to issue the notice - but left open the issue for taking action as per law = Sri Sai Balaji Health Care India Private Ltd., Hyderabad...Petitioner The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and another ..Respondents = Published in / cited in / Reported in judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10621

A.P.Revenue summons Act 1/1989 and the Andhra Pradesh Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act, 1974 (for short 'the 1974 Act'). - Thasildar issued to two notice of summons to produce documents etc., else he will take action under Escheats or Bona Vacanita Act to the petitioner - Writ - High court quashed the notices as the Thasildar is not competent to issue the notice - but left open the issue for taking action as per law = Whether the Thasildar is a competent authority to issue summons under Revenue summons Act 1 of 1989, in an enquiry under under the Andhra Pradesh Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act, 1974 (for short 'the 1974 Act'). ? = No as he is not the competent authority only joint collector as per 1977 G.O.Ms.Under Section 1 of the 1869 Act, the revenue officers such as Collectors, Sub-Collectors, Assistant Collectors, Deputy Collectors, Tahsildars and DeputyTahsildars etc., are empowered to summon any person whose evidence may appear to them to be necessary for the investigation of any matter in which they areauthorised to hold an inquiry, and also to require the production of anydocument or other article relevant to the matter under inquiry, which may be inpossession or under the control of such person. Thus, the power to summon underSection 1 of the 1869 Act can be exercised only by such persons as named in thesaid provision who are authorised to hold an inquiry. The phrase 'authorised'shall necessarily mean that either the officer is authorised by any provision ofany enactment or by delegation of power by an authority which is permitted todelegate his power under the extant enactment to hold an inquiry. Thus, Section1 is not a stand alone provision. Unless the authority concerned is vested withthe power to hold an inquiry under any other enactment, he cannot exercise thepower under the said provision.In the first notice dated 08.04.2011, respondent No.2 has not disclosed thepurpose for which he has issued the summons. However, in the second notice dated 27.04.2011, he has indicated that if the documents mentioned therein arenot produced, action under the provisions of the 1974 Act will be initiated.Under the said Act, only local officer as defined under Section 2(vi) read withSection 5 is empowered to hold an inquiry for declaring any property as anescheat or bona vacantia.Under Section 5 of the 1974 Act, the Government isauthorised to appoint by notification the District Collector or such otherofficers as they deemed fit to be the local officers for each district toexercise the powers and perform the functions assigned by or under the Actsubject to the general control and directions of the competent authority.The learned senior counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Courtto G.O.Ms.No.1426, Revenue, dated 31.10.1977, published in the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Code, Ninth Edition-2012, Volume 1, by Padala Rama Reddi. A perusal of the said G.O. shows that the Governor of Andhra Pradesh has appointed the JointCollectors as the local officers within the jurisdiction of their respectiveDistricts to exercise the powers and perform the functions assigned by or underthe 1974 Act and has also appointed the Tahsildars and the independent DeputyTahsildars as the officers to assist the local officers appointed for thepurpose of the 1974 Act within the jurisdiction of their taluks and the sub-taluks respectively.Thus, it is quite evident that the Tahsildar is not authorised to inquire underthe provisions of the 1974 Act to enable him to invoke the provisions of Section1 of the 1869 Act. Respondent No.2 was merely appointed to assist the JointCollector in an inquiry that may be initiated by the latter under the 1974 Act.Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the two impugned notices dated08.04.2011 and 27.04.2011 issued by respondent No.2 are without jurisdiction andthey are accordingly quashed.However, the local officer concerned is left freeto initiate appropriate proceedings if he is of the opinion that the petitioneris in possession of any property, which falls under the provisions of the 1974Act.The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.As a sequel to allowing the writ petition, interim order dated 30.04.2011 inW.P.M.P.No.16320 of 2011 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.16320 of 2011 and W.V.M.P.No.1113 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.13459 of 2011

05-12-2013

Sri Sai Balaji Health Care India Private Ltd., Hyderabad...Petitioner

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary,
Hyderabad and another ..Respondents

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondentNo.2 in issuing notices dated 08.04.2011 and 27.04.2011 under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Summonses Act, 1869 (for short 'the 1869 Act') as arbitrary and withoutjurisdiction.

The petitioner purchased property bearing Nos.3-4-3, 3-4-3/1 and
3-4-3/2 (corresponding to old premises No.1579 known as Ashokvihar) situated at
Station Road, Kachiguda, Hyderabad, together with appurtenant open land
admeasuring 2554 sq. yards from five private individuals under registered sale
deed dated 31.07.2008. When the petitioner was preparing to construct abuilding for hospital over the said land, respondent No.2 issued notice dated08.04.2011 summoning the present occupier of the premises to appear before him along with all the related documents on 16.04.2011. The petitioner claimed tohave submitted a copy of the sale deed in response to the said summons.Thereafter, respondent No.2 has issued another notice dated 27.04.2011 directingthe petitioner to produce the order copies of judgment in O.P.No.103 of 1975,dated 15.04.1976, succession certificate/legal heir certificate in favour of SriVivek Anand Shrikande and 'No Objection Certificate' from the DistrictCollector, Hyderabad, within three days from the date of the said notice. Boththese notices have been questioned in this writ petition on the ground that thesame have been issued by respondent No.2 without jurisdiction.

Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner,
submitted that the power to issue summons as done by respondent No.2 is available under the 1869 Act only if the summoning authority is authorised tohold an inquiry and that while in his notice dated 08.04.2011, respondent No.2has not specified the purpose for which the summons were issued, in the noticedated 27.04.2011, he has indicated that if the documents required by him are notproduced by the petitioner, necessary action will be initiated under the AndhraPradesh Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act, 1974 (for short 'the 1974 Act'). The
learned senior counsel further submitted that respondent No.2 does not fallwithin the definition of 'local officer' under Section 2 (vi) of the 1974 Actand that therefore, as he has no power to hold an inquiry under the said Act,both the impugned notices are without jurisdiction.

The learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area) submitted that under
the 1869 Act, respondent No.2 is empowered to issue summons and that therefore,
the impugned notices do not suffer from any jurisdictional error.

I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the
parties.

Under Section 1 of the 1869 Act, the revenue officers such as Collectors, Sub-Collectors, Assistant Collectors, Deputy Collectors, Tahsildars and DeputyTahsildars etc., are empowered to summon any person whose evidence may appear to them to be necessary for the investigation of any matter in which they areauthorised to hold an inquiry, and also to require the production of anydocument or other article relevant to the matter under inquiry, which may be inpossession or under the control of such person. Thus, the power to summon underSection 1 of the 1869 Act can be exercised only by such persons as named in thesaid provision who are authorised to hold an inquiry. The phrase 'authorised'shall necessarily mean that either the officer is authorised by any provision ofany enactment or by delegation of power by an authority which is permitted todelegate his power under the extant enactment to hold an inquiry. Thus, Section1 is not a stand alone provision. Unless the authority concerned is vested withthe power to hold an inquiry under any other enactment, he cannot exercise thepower under the said provision.In the first notice dated 08.04.2011, respondent No.2 has not disclosed thepurpose for which he has issued the summons. However, in the second notice dated 27.04.2011, he has indicated that if the documents mentioned therein arenot produced, action under the provisions of the 1974 Act will be initiated.Under the said Act, only local officer as defined under Section 2(vi) read withSection 5 is empowered to hold an inquiry for declaring any property as anescheat or bona vacantia.Under Section 5 of the 1974 Act, the Government isauthorised to appoint by notification the District Collector or such otherofficers as they deemed fit to be the local officers for each district toexercise the powers and perform the functions assigned by or under the Actsubject to the general control and directions of the competent authority.The learned senior counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Courtto G.O.Ms.No.1426, Revenue, dated 31.10.1977, published in the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Code, Ninth Edition-2012, Volume 1, by Padala Rama Reddi. A perusal of the said G.O. shows that the Governor of Andhra Pradesh has appointed the JointCollectors as the local officers within the jurisdiction of their respectiveDistricts to exercise the powers and perform the functions assigned by or underthe 1974 Act and has also appointed the Tahsildars and the independent DeputyTahsildars as the officers to assist the local officers appointed for thepurpose of the 1974 Act within the jurisdiction of their taluks and the sub-taluks respectively.Thus, it is quite evident that the Tahsildar is not authorised to inquire underthe provisions of the 1974 Act to enable him to invoke the provisions of Section1 of the 1869 Act. Respondent No.2 was merely appointed to assist the JointCollector in an inquiry that may be initiated by the latter under the 1974 Act.Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the two impugned notices dated08.04.2011 and 27.04.2011 issued by respondent No.2 are without jurisdiction andthey are accordingly quashed.However, the local officer concerned is left freeto initiate appropriate proceedings if he is of the opinion that the petitioneris in possession of any property, which falls under the provisions of the 1974Act.The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.As a sequel to allowing the writ petition, interim order dated 30.04.2011 inW.P.M.P.No.16320 of 2011 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.16320 of 2011 and W.V.M.P.No.1113 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
__________________________
(C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)
05th December, 2013

The Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar Appeal Suit No.144 of 2012 Dated 9th August, 2012Judgment: The appellant filed this appeal challenging Order, dated27-01-2012, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, refusing to register the suit filed by him on the ground that the same is barred by limitation . The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance basing on agreement of sale, dated 13-11-2008. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, the balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs out of the total sale price of Rs.9 lakhs was to be paid within two months from the date of expiry of the limitation of the said agreement of sale. The case of the appellant is that though he had been requesting the respondent to receive the balance sale consideration and register the sale deed in his favour, the respondent did not come forward; that therefore, he got issued a legal notice to the respondent on12-10-2011; that the respondent acknowled…

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable =in VadirajNaggappa Vernekar (deceased by L.Rs) v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate (supra), it is held as follows: "17. It is now well settled that the power to recall any witness underOrder 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion oron an application filed by any of the parties to the suit, but as indicatedhereinabove, such power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in theevidence of the witness which has already been recorded but to clear anyambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination. Of course,if the evidence on re-examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimatedecision of the suit, it is always within the discretion of the Trial Court topermit recall of such a witness for re-examination-in-chief with permis…

The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.101 of 2011 in the Court of III
Additional District Judge, Tirupati against the appellants and respondents 2 to
5 herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule
property, a hotel at Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. He pleaded that the land
on which the hotel was constructed was owned by the appellants and respondents 2
and 3, and his wife by name Saroja, and all of them gave the property on lease
to M/s. Swarna Restaurant Private Limited, 4th respondent herein, under a
document …